Civil Law - Will – Valid Execution – Section 63 Succession Act & Section 68 Evidence Act – Will Upheld – Testator Anokhi Ram bequeathed estate to one daughter Prema Devi and son-in-law; other heirs challenged alleging fraud, unsoundness of mind, and suspicious circumstances – Courts below found Will duly proved through attesting witness and corroborated by evidence of care and support rendered by beneficiaries – Suspicion held dispelled; exclusion of some heirs not by itself suspicious – Held: Execution valid and genuine – No interference warranted [Paras 24-27, 38-47].

Suspicious Circumstances – Removal of Doubts – Burden Discharged – Allegation that ignoring wife and minor daughters raised suspicion – Evidence established that beneficiaries were residing with and maintaining testator and his family, even admitted by plaintiff Vidya – Minor daughters educated and married by them – Held: Choice of testator natural; suspicion adequately removed [Paras 41-45].

Ancestral Property Claim – Rejected – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs alleged property was ancestral coparcenary and not bequeathable – Courts found no foundational facts to establish coparcenary; inheritance traced to father Basti Ram whose estate devolved after 1956, including daughters as Class I heirs – Hence, no coparcenary in Anokhi Ram’s hands – Property validly bequeathed [Paras 24, 29].

Limitation – Knowledge of Will and Mutation – Plaintiffs alleged ignorance until 2011 – First Appellate Court disbelieved plea; mutation had been attested in 1984 – Suit held barred by limitation – High Court upheld finding, invoking power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC [Paras 28, 32, 49].

Additional Substantial Questions of Law – Refusal to Frame – High Court rejected plea to frame two more questions on limitation and evaluation of evidence; held First Appellate Court could examine limitation under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC even absent cross-objections; no factual basis for further question – Application dismissed [Paras 35, 49-50].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments upholding validity of Will and dismissal of suit affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 51-52].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Petition – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(3)(b)(i) Rent Act – Eviction Upheld – Landlord sought eviction to expand business and settle younger son; tenant resisted alleging harassment, sufficient income/pension, and alternate accommodation – Held: Landlord is best judge of his requirement; Court cannot dictate manner of expansion – Bona fide need established – Eviction decree justified [Paras 4, 8, 12, 14].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 24(5) Rent Act – Limited Interference – Following Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, revisional powers cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence but only examine legality/propriety of findings – No perversity found – Interference refused [Paras 9-11].

Plea of Alternate Premises – Section 14(3)(a)(i) Rent Act – Non-sustainable – Tenant raised plea that landlord had rented out another shop within 5 years – Held: Not pleaded earlier, no issue framed, and unsupported by evidence – Requirement is with respect to “such a building”; landlord proved need for adjacent shop as most suitable – Tenant failed to show otherwise [Para 13].

Harassment and Pension Income – Irrelevant to Bona fide Requirement – Allegations of harassment by landlord and sufficiency of pension income are immaterial; landlord’s family, including son, will not have pension after his death; bona fide need prevails [Para 14].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed – Tenant directed to vacate premises by 31st October 2025 – No interference warranted [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – Sections 31 & 34 LAA – Non-deposit of compensation and liability for interest – Award dated 21.12.2004 not followed by deposit despite co-sharer dispute – Failure to deposit under Section 31 and absence of Section 12 notice to landowners noted – Held: Interest @ 9% p.a. from award/possession for one year and thereafter @ 15% p.a. is the statutory scheme under Section 34 – Concurrent decree awarding 9% p.a. from 21.12.2004 till 04.08.2009 upheld as plaintiffs did not seek enhancement – Appeal partly allowed only to modify post-decree interest structure [Paras 10–16, 18–20].

Collector’s Duty on Apportionment Dispute – Section 30 Reference and Section 31 Deposit – Co-sharer dispute no defence to retention – Collector must either refer dispute under Section 30 or deposit compensation in Court under Section 31 – Non-compliance fastens interest liability – Contention about prior writ/representations raised beyond pleadings and, even if considered, does not excuse non-deposit [Paras 14–17].

Section 12 Notice – Award Finality and Intimation – No pleading or proof that Section 12(2) notice of award was served on plaintiffs – Factor weighing against the appellant’s case on withholding payment [Para 13].

Rate/Mode of Interest – Modification of Trial Court’s Penal Direction – Trial Court’s stipulation of 18% p.a. if payment not made within two months found excessive – High Court modifies: over and above interest @ 9% p.a. on compensation from 21.12.2004 till 04.08.2009, the appellant shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. on this interest component from 04.08.2009 till realization – Decrees below modified to this extent [Paras 21–24].

Decision – Second appeal disposed of with modification – Interest @ 9% p.a. on compensation from 21.12.2004 (award) till 04.08.2009 (payment) sustained – Additional interest @ 6% p.a. on the accrued interest component from 04.08.2009 till realization substituted in place of 18% penal clause – Appeal partly allowed; rest of the decree affirmed [Paras 20, 22–24].

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement and Consideration – Trial Court decreed suit; First Appellate Court reversed – plaintiff relied on agreement dated 30.11.2015 alleging full cash payment of ₹20,00,000 and extension endorsement to 30.04.2016 – High Court found material contradictions: scribe not identified, plaintiff unsure where/when document was executed, attesting witness PW2 was plaintiff’s brother, stamp paper allegedly purchased by respondent’s husband (not owner), extension endorsement signed only by husband, prior money dealings admitted, and improbability of paying entire price in cash without executing sale deed – Held: Execution and payment not proved; appellate findings of fact warrant no interference – RSA dismissed [Paras 2, 4–8, 9].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff pleaded presence before Sub-Registrar on 03.05.2016 but led no cogent proof of source of ₹20,00,000 or continuous readiness – Contradictions in testimonies undermine readiness/willingness – Held: Requirement under Section 16(c) not established – Specific performance declined [Paras 2, 8].

Evidence – Attesting Witness and Proof of Execution – Section 67 Evidence Act – Attesting witness PW2 being plaintiff’s brother and absence of the scribe’s evidence; deed writer did not read over contents; inconsistencies between PW1 and PW2 as to scribing and purchase of stamp – Held: Burden to prove execution not discharged [Para 8].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Findings of the First Appellate Court are pure findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence – No ground to re-appreciate evidence in RSA – Appeal dismissed [Para 9].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 12.05.2022 upholding dismissal of suit for specific performance affirmed – Pending applications also dismissed [Para 9].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Dismissal Confirmed – The appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of title, possession, and alternatively partition, over land alleged to be part of a tank acquired by their father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendants were in possession for over 25 years, pursuant to a 1984 family partition, and plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession – Revenue records relied upon by plaintiffs were held insufficient to establish title – The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent findings [Paras 1–3, 14–26].

Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Own Title – Plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership or entitlement over the suit land – Defendants proved possession under 1984 partition – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Courts below rightly rejected claim [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Adverse Possession – Long Possession by Defendants – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs approached Court after over 25 years – Defendants in open, uninterrupted possession since 1984 – Held: Plaintiffs lost any right over suit land by efflux of time – Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Ex.B.3 – Admissible as Memorandum of Oral Partition – Partition deed though unregistered was treated as proof of earlier oral partition – Plaintiffs’ witnesses admitted to 1984 partition and continuous possession by defendants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on Ex.B.3 to establish family division [Paras 16, 18].

Co-ownership – Not Established – Plaintiffs and Defendants Not Co-heirs – Plaintiffs not entitled to claim partition or joint possession – Held: Presumption of joint possession or claim of co-heirship not applicable – Alternative relief of partition rightly rejected [Paras 22-23].

Revenue Records – Not Proof of Title – Exs.A1, A2, A6-A9 – Pattadar passbooks and adangals held insufficient to prove legal title or possession – Held: Such records do not confer ownership in absence of supporting title deed or consistent possession [Para 21].

Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Courts below applied correct legal principles – Held: High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally flawed – No such error found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession after 25 years of inaction [Para 26].

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Adultery – Divorce Decree Set Aside – Respondent-husband was granted divorce by Family Court citing cruelty and desertion – High Court on appeal found no specific incidents of cruelty or reliable evidence of adultery – Allegations of illicit relationship with co-respondent were unsubstantiated – Evidence showed wife was willing to resume matrimonial life – Held: Allegations were general, vague, and lacked legal substance – Divorce decree set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 13, 18-23, 26-27].

Cruelty – Must Be Proved with Specific Incidents – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Respondent failed to specify dates or incidents indicating mental or physical cruelty – Court held minor quarrels and occasional spats do not constitute legal cruelty – Conduct must be grave, continuous and cause genuine apprehension of harm – No such case made out – Burden of proof not discharged [Paras 18-22].

Adultery – Allegation Must Be Supported by Proof of Voluntary Sexual Relationship – No Evidence of Illicit Relationship – Court observed that adultery must be proved with clear evidence of physical relationship – Mere suspicion or social interaction does not suffice – No independent witness, circumstantial proof, or documentary evidence was produced – Allegation held to be baseless and motivated to create ground for divorce [Paras 24-26].

Repeated Divorce Litigations – Second Petition on Same Facts Not Maintainable – Earlier M.M. Case No. 62 of 2009 was compromised – Fresh divorce case filed on identical allegations without new cause of action – Court disapproved repeated litigation without genuine grievance – Reflects lack of bona fide on husband’s part [Paras 15, 18].

Appellant Willing to Resume Matrimonial Life – Conduct Undermines Ground of Desertion – Wife consistently expressed readiness to cohabit – Court held that readiness of one party to continue the relationship negates allegation of desertion by other spouse – Respondent-husband made no effort for restitution – Did not file petition under Section 9 HMA [Paras 18, 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Divorce decree dated 25.02.2019 set aside – M.M. Case No. 176 of 2011 dismissed – Parties not divorced – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of [Paras 27-29].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Registered Owner – Vehicle Uninsured – Compensation Liability Affirmed – Offending scooter involved in accident was admittedly uninsured – Registered owner argued that vehicle was taken by respondent-driver without authority and that driver had agreed to bear compensation liability – Held: Registered owner cannot evade liability under Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act – Absence of insurance and failure to prove forcible taking of vehicle makes registered owner liable – Dismissal of appeals upheld by relying on Supreme Court rulings in Naveen v. Vijay and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Registered owner may pursue independent remedy against the driver but remains liable to injured parties [Paras 5, 9-12].

Uninsured Vehicle – No Relief Against Compensation Liability – Affidavit by Driver Not a Ground to Discharge Owner – Registered owner relied on driver’s affidavit stating he would pay compensation – Held: Such affidavit does not affect liability of registered owner under the Act – Owner must satisfy award and may seek recovery from driver separately – Tribunal rightly held both owner and driver jointly and severally liable [Paras 5, 11-12].

Appeals Against Compensation – No Enhancement Sought by Claimants – Finding Limited to Owner’s Liability – No appeal for enhancement was filed by claimants – Scope of appeal confined to contest of liability by registered owner – Tribunal award upheld to the extent of holding owner liable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 4, 12].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles of Double Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC for assaulting and robbing the complainant – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in identification, non-sealing of recovered items, and contradictory testimonies – High Court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable after acquittal and found no compelling reason to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Identification – TIP Refused – Delayed and Tainted Identification Not Reliable – Complainant identified accused in court more than a month after arrest, claiming he recognized them during court visit – Accused had refused TIP citing prior exposure in police station – High Court held such identification lacked evidentiary value due to procedural compromise and delay [Paras 6, 11, 14].

Recovery – Failure to Seal Recovered Items – Recovery Not Credible – Purse, PAN card, and ID card allegedly recovered from accused were neither sealed nor subjected to forensic testing – IO admitted inability to link currency notes to the complainant – Recovery held to be in open condition and devoid of evidentiary worth [Paras 9, 14].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Independent Witness Denied Presence of Accused – Defence witness DW6, an independent eyewitness and neighbor, stated that quarrel occurred between complainant and other persons and the accused were not present – Prosecution did not cross-examine the witness – DD entries and MLC also did not mention robbery – Held: Prosecution version doubtful [Paras 7-8, 14].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope Limited – No Interference Without Perverse Finding – Citing precedents including Ravi Sharma v. State (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in reversing acquittals – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s assessment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No.2 under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in well-reasoned judgment of Trial Court – Proceedings against respondent No.1 abated due to death during pendency of appeal [Paras 6, 15-16].

Civil Law  – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell New Tenure Land – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff sought enforcement of a 1980 agreement to sell land which was then classified as new tenure agricultural land – No permission under Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act obtained – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: Agreement was void ab initio, barred by law – No cause of action arose – High Court dismissed Second Appeal, holding no substantial question of law arises [Paras 1-3, 15-17, 24-26].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Enforceability of Agreement Hit by Statutory Bar – Agreement to sell restricted land without Collector’s permission – Held: Agreement void under Section 43 of Tenancy Act – Plaint rightly rejected at threshold – Plaintiff's readiness and possession immaterial in face of statutory bar [Paras 15-17, 22-23].

Tenancy Law – Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act – Agreement to Sell Without Sanction – Barred by Law – Held: Section 43(1) expressly prohibits agreement to sell new tenure land without Collector's sanction – Section 43(2) renders such agreements void – Plaintiff admitted land was new tenure at the time of agreement – Hence, no enforceable right accrued [Paras 14-17].

Specific Performance – Conditional Agreement – Land Not Converted at Time of Agreement – Held: Agreement subject to future conversion of land tenure – Sale unenforceable unless condition fulfilled and permission obtained – Suit filed decades later without evidence of compliance – No cause of action made out [Paras 10-11, 20-21].

Possession and Protection Under Section 53A TPA – Not a Ground to Sustain Invalid Agreement – Plaintiff claimed possession since 1980 – Held: Possession under invalid or illegal agreement not protected under Section 53A – Agreement void from inception due to statutory bar – Ancillary reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 13, 20].

Limitation – Cause of Action Claimed in 2012 – Agreement Dated 1980 – No Continuous Assertion of Right – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness or communication for 32 years – Father of vendor died in 2009 – No demand till public notice in 2012 – Suit time-barred and barred by law [Paras 11, 23].

Substantial Question of Law – None Arising from Concurrent Findings – Enforceability of Void Agreement Not a New Legal Issue – Held: All legal issues settled by Full Bench and Supreme Court – No perversity or error in findings of Courts below – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Civil Application Also Disposed – No error in rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Agreement held void and suit barred by law – No triable issue or substantial question of law made out [Paras 26-27].